There have been lots more questions since our last posting, all very interesting, sorry not to post more often and for so many words now, but I hope this posting helps answer some of the unanswered queries. Questions are good - it is what our sport thrives on and why any innovation is intriguing. This posting hopefully covers several of the issues raised on several topics that have been raised as a result of the success of the Ozone bbHPP. The moderators can hopefully correct me if deemed inappropriate, but I have posted this to the Killing the Carbon thread and the bbHPP thread. Sorry for the repitition.

As we have said, we like carbon because it has shown good early potential and because of the unanswered questions and the possible developments. We all dream of a more tuck resistant glider, more performance, perfect weather and those dream flights. In the bbHPP, the carbon has helped with those first two elements!

Open class comps are a good place for responsible manufacturers to invest time and money in developing those dreams. And if they work, ensure they get safely realised in wings that get sold in the mainstream (with the aid of certification). Gin’s Rigifoil and the Gibus Arch are fine examples of this process; good innovations ending up in mainstream glider design.

Ironically, in the past, when Ozone and others were trying to promote just serial class in competitions it was the pilots and manufacturers who voted with their feet and said ‘no’, making the fair point that Open class comps allowed developments to occur and be tested in a competitive environment before they safely filtered down to other gliders, the PWC re-affirmed this Open position in a recent vote. As a result of the initial ‘no’, three years ago, Ozone started an Open Class project in order to help develop the whole range of wings we make. It is not just to win and for publicity, but importantly to learn - and that is what is exciting for us, but having the boys win added some very nice icing on the cake!

There are good arguments for a more regulated serial class competition scene. There are also good arguments for keeping an open class, and to help level the playing field by allowing factory pilots, on pure prototypes, to compete, but in a separate class. For sure that might make the comps open to more pilots put off by the fact they do not have access to the latest protos. That idea makes good sense to us.

Back to the bbHPP and carbon… Increasing aspect is one way to get performance and the bbHPP did have a high aspect as well as the carbon innovation. In Ozone we know that ultimately you cannot cheat aspect. More aspect means more likelihood of cravat and unless it is highly arched (which can negate the potential performance gain) it makes a wing more demanding to fly.

The original HPP was an extreme and scary example - aspect of 11, the baby HPP at 8.4 was acceptable for top competition pilots, but still not ideal.

Not knowing what CIVL will decide has not stopped us developing all the new concepts we have in the HPP project. Whatever the ruling we have moved on and will continue to do so. We have made a nicer wing by reducing the aspect, but keeping the performance, with or without the use of carbon. Whether using carbon or plastic or something else it is exciting to know improvements can be made. The work since the bbHPP means that we are even more excited about the prospects of the new R10 which is making the bbHPP an old and passed design.

But even so, we don't want to ban carbon as we want to have the possibility to explore its potential further. Although we are also succeeding without carbon we believe it might make wings nicer in the long term. That is why we are against a 1cm proposal designed to ban it with no real scientific basis (in the PMA working group discussions, the radius was originally based on the hole in a Barvarian Beer Table - that really confused us!)

We also do not think 10cm is very good. We also suggested that other proposals should be part of the vote, one being a status quo, the other being along the lines of the wing fitting in a normal back pack and within a weight limit etc. The vote went ahead with only the 2 “radius” proposals as you have seen.

We would hope that the PMA would rethink their position in light of the new information in the videos and with the views expressed on forums such as this. Failing a rethink, we hope that CIVL can take on board the extra information and the views of the pilots and make a better informed decision.

Below is a link for a video of flight test manoeuvres being carried out on the bbHPP. We don't think many other manufacturers have published tests on an open class wing, so it was interesting to do this. The high aspect, increased tuck resistance/stability and line configuration make it too difficult to do a clean full frontal, but as with a lot of other comp wings with similar attributes and with such an aspect we think there would always be the chance of cravat.

This risk is one reason why our development of the R10, which will be released more widely for comp pilots, has concentrated in getting the same performance as the bbHPP out of a more acceptable aspect. Restricting aspect is one way that regulation, if it is needed, could be put on all classes of glider (not just open class wings) as it does positively help reduce one danger, the danger of cravat. Russell has been quoted in this forum saying that the BBHPP is hard work to fly. This was not because of the carbon; it was because of the aspect.

One thing that everyone at Ozone believes, is that our self regulation is driven by our desire to look after all pilots, at whatever level they choose to fly, and at the end of the day, that mission is the basis of our commercialism and rooted in our own desire to fly.

I hope you find this test video interesting, and although we may not have the time to actively reply we appreciate your views on the subject. The link is to our new Performance page. There is a new video on our Performance Project. And please look at BBHPP Videos link where there is the previous bbHPP flight (part 1) video and a brand new Part 2 showing the tests we carried out at Monaco.